Day 30: Ailing juror may delay James trial

Jurors in the federal corruption trial of former Newark Mayor Sharpe James are scheduled to return Tuesday morning for a fourth full day of deliberations -- but only if they are healthy.

U.S. District Judge William Martini excused the panel of six men and six women about an hour earlier than usual yesterday afternoon because one juror complained of illness. Martini said that the juror, whom he did not identify, said he started feeling sick, possibly from a virus, over the weekend.

Court officials planned to contact the juror last night to determine if he was healthy enough to proceed. If not, the judge planned to postpone trial deliberations for the day.

If they return, jurors are expected to resume listening to testimony from Joanne Watson, who as Newark's corporation counsel during James' administration offered legal advice on city dealings. The jury did not specify yesterday why it wanted to hear Watson's testimony, which spanned several hours on March 19 and 20, so the judge has ordered that her entire transcript be read aloud.

James, who chose not to seek a sixth term as mayor in 2006, faces fraud and conspiracy charges for allegedly rigging city land sales for his onetime mistress, Tamika Riley.

Riley, 39, a Jersey City entrepreneur, paid $46,000 for nine city-owned properties between 2001 and 2005 and resold them, sometimes within weeks, for more than $600,000. Prosecutors contend she defrauded the city by buying the properties and flipping them without rehabbing them as promised. Riley also faces housing fraud and tax charges for allegedly lying about her real estate profits and income.

Watson, who is now a municipal judge in Newark, was one of 33 witnesses called to the stand by prosecutors. Her office reviewed resolutions that the James administration prepared and the city council approved regarding land sales to Riley under a redevelopment program.

James signed city contracts with Riley that finalized the land deals. The contracts mandated that city officials should have no direct or indirect personal interest in the agreements. That language mirrors provisions in state law and city ordinance, Watson said.

Watson testified that James never disclosed that he had a romantic relationship with Riley. She said that would have been important, useful information in determining whether James had a conflict of interest and needed to recuse himself. She also said James could have recused himself without disclosing the nature of his conflict.

Under cross-examination by Thomas Ashley, James' lead attorney, Watson said the contract's language was subject to interpretation and did not explicitly say city officials had a duty to disclose potential conflicts of interest. She said someone could have interpreted the contract to mean that an official had that duty only if they would receive some "personal benefit" from the contract.

She also said that James had a "contentious" relationship with the city council and that a dispute between the mayor and council over who had authority to initiate city land sales ended up in court. Defense attorneys have argued that the city council -- not the mayor -- has ultimate authority over city property sales.